How to write a GCSE English Literature poetry essay

I get a few hits for this, and I’ve marked a lot of papers, so I thought I’d give you an insight into my own process. I really hate those ‘teachers’ who never have a go themselves. Whilst I understand you don’t have to be great at something to be a great coach (see Alex Ferguson and the Man United team!) I think you should be able to articulate the process of what good essays do. You might not think that’s very humble of me – here’s my great work of art essay! – it’s not. It’s average. But it’s a starting point for you. Many of us never actually see what it is we’re ever asked to produce at the end of reading all these poems. It’s like someone gives you all the nuts, bolts, panels and cogs to make a car, but you’ve never seen a car – and what you produce might not look like ‘a car’. That would be fine if some examiner didn’t then compare what you’d made to a car and mark it on how much like a car your thing was. So that’s why I’m saying this is an example of how I do it. It’s one way. Plus, it ticks all the things on the mark scheme.

I’m going to take the hardest type of Literature essay (the one that candidates avoid like the plague and examiners wonder why they didn’t choose to do it…) – the ‘say whether you like or dislike this XXXXX poem and compare it to another one’ essay. Here’s a made-up example based on one from the specimen GCSE English Literature paper.

Readers like poems and dislike others. Write about whether you like or dislike Mametz Wood and compare your response to one other poem you either like or dislike. Remember to write about how the poems are written.

This type of question often foxes people in the middle or lower grade bands. It’s easy to say you dislike it, if you do, but it’s hard for a GCSE candidate to articulate why they might dislike it. Often, it’s the subject matter that is hard to explain your dislikes. Sometimes it’s just a gut reaction.

Remember, you are not a poet and it’s easy to criticise what is written; it’s more appropriate to say that you like it, or to find three or four things about it that you can live with, unless you are VERY, VERY good at poetry critique. Most sixteen year olds don’t like poetry. Fact. Survey 200 and you’ll find 100 really don’t like it (hint: they’re the ones that groan when the Anthology comes out) and only 10 really like it. I’m with the ‘really like it’ group. Always have. I know. I’m a geek.

Where’s all this going?

Say you like it, even if you don’t. My thoughts when I read an essay if someone has criticised the poem ‘I don’t like this bit and this bit is crap, the poet could have done this bit better’?

Really? You’re sixteen and you think you know best! Published any poetry recently have you? AH, the arrogance of youth! I bet you’d tell Ferrari they don’t know how to make cars and criticise Marc Jacobs’ new fashion line! 

I’m going with why I like the poem here. Some teachers avoid this question and many students often avoid this type of question, because it asks you to put your thoughts on the line. Instead of being marked on poetry analysis, you THINK you are being marked on your views. You aren’t. You’re still being marked on your analysis. In fact, this type of question lends itself really well to A and A* grades because if you say you like something and explain, you’re ‘evaluating’ – a word from the higher grades on the mark scheme. Also, you can pick out what you like about the poem and focus on that.

I’m going to talk you through how I’d think about the response first… all of this goes on in my head, and a little bit on paper before I start writing. Good essay writers think first and then write. You’d be amazed by how many people miss the thinking step out.

To start… I pick four things I particularly like about the poem, remembering the golden rule to focus on the form of the poem if it’s helpful, and the organisation – the way the ideas build up or are revealed. And then I pick another poem that has similar qualities. In this case, I’m going to pick The Golden Palm by Minhinnick, because it’s another of my favourites.

I start by thinking about what I want to write about:

3 language things and 1 thing to do with form (minimum)

  • The way the poem builds up to revealing the grave – a bit like the way the skeletons are revealed themselves – over time (form)
  • The idea of the earth being like a person with secrets that it needs to reveal – that image of the foreign body being worked out like a splinter
  • The ‘mid dance-macabre’ line – which reminds us of the brevity of life
  • The idea of the soldiers being linked in death, the care, the way it evokes real thought

And then I think about other poems that compare well. Do any other poems build up and reveal? I guess Bayonet Charge does. If I want to look at The Yellow Palm which I really like, does this build up? I think so.

  • The way Minhinnick builds up to the child – the future – and it blessing the cruise missile, and the way he builds up this surreal image of chaos and unnatural sights

Then I have to think about the ideas revealed – so what is Sheers revealing? What’s his central idea? I’ve got other poems where nature is used quite profoundly – like The Fallen Leaves and Futility where the poet uses nature to contrast with conflict. So what’s the idea?

  • The idea is that we don’t get the whole story – just clips of scenes of confusion, a world out of balance

I’m not quite sure of the connection, beyond ‘the idea’ but it’s enough to frame a paragraph. I guess the idea in Mametz Wood is quite well-formed and he uses the simile to help us understand, whereas The Yellow Palm doesn’t do that – it’s just frightening fragments, (actually like the bits of bones revealed…. there’s a connection… and it never builds up to reveal the entire thing – the whole picture – and although we finally see the entire corpse row in Mametz Wood, we don’t get to know the whole story, only guess at it. That’s the same idea.)

You see how thinking allowed me to find the connection. If I’m writing, I’m not necessarily going to stop and go down that route.

The next one is easier: the brevity of life is easy to find. There are no young men in this poem, and the children remind us of the problems yet to come.

  • The way the poet uses what’s not there, just like the story behind the linked arms, to reveal something profound: the men are missing.

Finally, I have to think about what idea I can compare with the idea of the linked soldiers. That’s a little harder. I have to think about what story this tells, what thought is provoked. I’m going to go with the utter chaos and fragmented sense of things, in this ballad form. I like the use of this quite jaunty form with this nightmarish scene. I want to write about that.

My next step is to write the essay!

You will be able to find this actual essay in my new Kindle book (which you can download to PC too if you don’t have a Kindle or e-reader) AQA GCSE English Literature Poetry: Conflict – contemporary poems. In the meantime, here’s a link to my guide to the Literary Heritage Conflict poetry. It’s fabulous, if I do say so myself. I would say that. I wrote it. But it’s got all of the poems and the most in-depth analysis you will find on the web. That’s not a lie. Most other guides touch on each poem but you won’t find such a detailed analysis of each poem. I’ve tried to cover everything in there – far too much to write about in 45 minutes – but I know some people want to know everything inside out. If you find a bit I’ve missed, email me, I’ll add it and credit you, of course!

The Contemporary Poetry version will be out in about a week.

If you don’t ‘get’ these poems, if they don’t make sense, or even if they do – and you just don’t know what to write or how to write, then this might help you. Remember, it’s just my view – if you think something else, let me know and I shall endeavour to add it and credit you.

Yesterday, one of my students enlightened me about Crooks in Of Mice and Men. I’ve taught that book to over 500 students, and still 16 year olds teach me new stuff about it.

If you want to read more about the AQA poetry anthology contemporary poetry, you can find my ebook here. Remember, you don’t need a kindle or e-reader to read it; just download the ‘Kindle for PC’ software. If you want an hour’s lesson with me (or even half an hour!) you can find all my details on my website. One hour via skype is £20.00 only! By the end, I promise you will OWN the poems!!

Revising for GCSE English Literature

Because I know there are a lot of worried parents and students out there, I’ve put together an e-book on the Conflict Literary Heritage poems. It runs at 20,000 words, 80-odd pages, and if you don’t know these seven poems inside out by then, nothing will help you! There are two sample essays in it,  and lots and lots of guidance about the poems including:

Futility by Wilfred Owen

next to of course god america i by E. E. Cummings

The Fallen Leaves by Margaret Postgate Cole

Come on, Come back by Stevie Smith

The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Bayonet Charge by Ted Hughes

Hawk Roosting by Ted Hughes

It doesn’t matter if you don’t have a kindle – download Amazon’s Kindle for PC and you can read them on your computer!

Study guides for Conflict: Contemporary poems, and all the other clusters will follow!

Unlike other study guides which cover all the poems in the anthology, you can select which ones you want, so you’re not paying for a book that you won’t use properly. Also, because each one is focused, they’re much more detailed.

Click here to see the ebook on Amazon


And if you have any feedback, let me know. I can add stuff, change stuff and take things out. The beauty of modern publishing!

If you want to read more about the AQA poetry anthology contemporary poetry, you can find my ebook here. Remember, you don’t need a kindle or e-reader to read it; just download the ‘Kindle for PC’ software. If you want an hour’s lesson with me (or even half an hour!) you can find all my details on my website. One hour via skype is £10.00 only! By the end, I promise you will OWN the poems!!

Sample GCSE English Literature poetry essay

So, what should you write? How should you write? You’ve got 45 minutes to write about two poems, answering a given question, like this one:

Compare how the results of war are shown in Futility and one other poem from Conflict

I start by making sure I’ve written about both language and structure. Usually, I try to make four big points. One of these is usually about structure.

I also try to make sure I keep using the words of the question and make sure that both the beginning of each paragraph and the end of it goes back to the words of the question as well. This makes sure I stay focused on the question. I’m not supposed to just write about the two poems.

I try to focus on the connections, not the differences. Of course the poems are different. Otherwise they’d be the same. Duh! So I start with what they do the same, and then I say how they’re different, so I do both.

I try and write confidently and back up what I say with quotes. Usually, I’ve got the quotes highlighted before I even start.

I make sure I pick another poem that helps me answer the question. I like to compare Futility with The Fallen Leaves or next to of course god america i but it didn’t fit. Neither of those poems are really about the ‘results’ of conflict – whereas Come on, Come back is really about the results – the aftermath

I tried to make sure I had a conclusion that brought everything together and I picked out the four key ideas and rephrased them in my answer.

This is my 45 minutes to show off to the examiner. This is it. My one chance. I need to make sure I have the right vocabulary to express what I think. So I’m going to use words like nihilistic and existence because they’re better than any alternative I’ve come across. I get nothing by dumbing down.

I know the mark scheme inside out. I know what I need to show and I know if I can’t, I can’t get the full range of marks. So, I know I need to explore the poems and analyse the language and/or structure and/or form.

I know I need to use quotes to support my response. And I know I need to pick out the best quotes – something really insightful. If it’s not that important in the poem, why am I including it?

I know I need to write about ideas and/or themes.

I need to compare analytically and compare ideas/themes/language/structure/form.

This is my response:

In Futility and Come on, Come back, we see the results of wars past and wars future. Futility shows how war affects the living, how it makes them contemplate life, how it makes you question everything, particularly existence. In Come on, Come back, we see how war devastates the mind, how it leaves people longing for peace and salvation, even if they can’t remember what it is they have done or seen.

Owen uses the structure of Futility to convey a single event and the subsequent thoughts it evokes. He uses the simple sonnet form to find the essence of what a death brings to him – the feeling of utter pointlessness. Even though it is much more brief than Come on, Come back, he epitomises the feelings of nihilism and emptiness that death can bring. He uses half-rhyme to create a disjointed, unnatural feel that makes the poem feel strange and creates a strange disjointed harmony. It doesn’t quite sound right. This is superbly appropriate for the subject itself. Even though the dead soldier looks as if he is just sleeping, he isn’t. It isn’t quite right. He also builds on the series of questions he asks in the poem to build up to the most profound of all: “Oh what made fatuous sunbeams toil/to break earth’s sleep at all?” Here we see how he cannot understand why the universe bothered to raise anything, to build a civilisation, when it is all for nothing. We destroy each other.

Although Come on, Come back is a narrative poem, it still uses the structure to build up to a climax, just as Owen did. The line lengths and the way the lines fall, as well as the odd rhymes of ‘stone’ in the first stanza are also disjointed and fragmented. Thus we see how the poet uses rhythm and rhyme (or half-rhyme in Owen’s case) to create a sense of a fragmented, confused, disharmonious world.

The personas in the two poems are also different: Owen’s is a first-person narrative whereas Come on, Come back is third-person narrative. Owen’s use of a persona is helpful: it is insightful. We get to see into his mind and see his thoughts. This helps us empathise with him and gain an insight into his feeling of utter despair and despondency. In Come on, Come back Stevie Smith writes about ‘Vaudevue’, the ‘girl soldier’. Using this persona is interesting and thought-provoking. A ‘girl soldier’ is something unusual. Women often don’t fight on the front line, as this girl has, mainly because women are seen as not being able to cope with the front line and what they see. We’re instantly thrown into wondering if it’s acceptable for women to see such things, and if it isn’t, is it any better for men to see such things. Not only this, but Smith calls her a ‘girl’ – something more fragile, more innocent than a man. Naming her makes her identifiable. Unlike ‘him’ in Futility, a soldier who could represent anybody, Vaudevue has a name and we see her actions. Both are powerful. One makes us think that the dead soldier could be anybody. It could be our brother, our father, our husband. The other makes it personal. In fact, Owen doesn’t even say that this man is a soldier, or even that he is dead. There are several things we can take from this. One is that he doesn’t even know who the soldier is – which shows us the absolute tragedy of war. This man will not be remembered as an individual. It is not personal. Either we all mourn his death or nobody does, because he is nameless. The other thought is that by keeping the soldier anonymous, Owen is deliberately trying to show that he could be anyone. Both show the effect of war – one by using an anonymous man to show Owen’s own thoughts, therefore the effect on him personally. Smith shows the effect on one individual. Both take one individual and show the consequences of conflict on them – and by seeing one person, we learn about the effects of war on the individual. It becomes more personal.

The effects in both poems seem largely psychological. In Futility, the damage done by conflict is in how it makes Owen question everything: mostly, it makes him question our existence, the whole point of our lives: “was it for this the clay grew tall?” – in this God-forsaken man-made war, he cannot see God, or the point of existence. Science gives him no comfort. Yes, the sun gave conditions on earth the ability to generate life. And that work all seems pointless. It leaves Owen desperate for answers and despondent about life. In Come on, Come back, Vaudevue comes to the same conclusion. She too asks: “Aye me, why am I here?” and although the question is ostensibly about her memory loss, we sense something much deeper. Conflict has left both Vaudevue and Owen with a profound sense of pointlessness.

The war seems to have more of an effect on Vaudevue, however. She doesn’t just stop at questioning her existence. Her next action is to go to a lake. She removes her uniform, ‘lunges’ into the water and lies, ‘weeping’ before letting the ‘waters close over her head’. Here, Smith uses a deep symbolism. We have the symbolism of the water – something that soothes and cleanses. Water purifies. Water is used in many cultures and religions as a way of cleaning yourself. Indeed, in Christianity, water is the symbol of baptism, whereby the holy water washes away sin and leaves you reborn. Yet this water is ‘black’ like her mind. This water does not clean her or wash away her sins. When the ‘enemy soldier’ calls her back and carves out a pipe from the reeds, we get a sense of something more primeval – something pre-Christian, something pagan. This, too, is a Godless world. Without religion, we have no sense of anything after death, so not only do both question their existence, but without the promise of eternal life, life is completely pointless. Vaudevue, even without a memory, is so affected by her ‘black’ mind that she seeks comfort and protection from the water, which envelops her and protects her from the world, just as the lake did with Syrinx when she sought to escape from Pan. She is safe there. War has left her in need of comfort and solace – something she finds only in death. In contrast, in Futility, Owen is left in need of comfort and solace, though this is provoked by death which provides no comfort and solace at all.

Finally, both poets use natural images to show war and the results of it. In Come on, Come back Smith shows that the natural world is left behind once the war passes over. It might be ‘rutted’ but the moonlight, water and meadows remain. Nature is what consoles Vaudevue, giving her sanctuary. We see how, once war has passed, nature is left. It’s almost as if Vaudevue is the last human on earth – apart from the enemy sentinel. Nature softens the wounds that war makes. In Futility, this is different. Nature doesn’t offer consolation or solace or hope or safety; it simply reminds him of the pointlessness of life. The sun, a powerful and evocative image of life, has no power. Unsown fields remind Owen of the wasted potential of the dead soldier’s life. He is reminded that nature is powerless and pointless against war.

In summary, both poets show similar results to war. War destroys the mind, war provokes nihilistic questions about the whole point to life. War reminds us of our pointlessness and the brevity of our lives. Both poems show how war fragments and fractures, its psychological effects. War leaves us questioning life, questioning existence. Whilst nature may be left, this is cold comfort to Owen, although it comforts and protects Vaudevue.

next to of course god america i

This poem, by e e cummings, is in the new AQA anthology – and it will probably fox a lot of people. So… what do you need to know?

The most noticeable thing about e e cummings’ poetry is that it is non-conformist. This poem is perhaps less non-conformist, structurally, than many of his other poems. Forget anything about saying what it looks like – which many teachers seem to rely on when talking about form and structure – and think of two things:

1. e e cummings is a rule-breaker with a very distinct personal style. As soon as you see lack of capitals, odd punctuation and strange layouts, e e cummings is probably hot favourite to be the writer. Much of what he writes is covered with his writing ‘fingerprints’ that make it as distinct and unique as a real-life fingerprint.

2. The most important thing is you ask yourself: why? Why does he write like this? Why has he chosen not to capitalise this word, or capitalise another? Why does he want to break with ‘traditions’

3. Then ask yourself what it is about the way he’s set it out that helps add meaning to what he writes. What does it tell us?

If you want to think about the structure of e e cummings’ poems, take all the line breaks out of them, see where you would want to put them and think about why.

Why do poets use line breaks?

  • For a long time, line breaks didn’t exist. In copied writing, for a long time, sometimes up to the time of the printing press, most of the words ran into one another with no spacing at all, and no paragraphs. ‘Poets’ who wrote Icelandic sagas, Beowulf and so on, didn’t use the features we now associate with poetry. Line breaks came much later on, and for a period of time – 400 years or so – were fairly standard.
  • Ask a five-year old what a poem looks like or to identify what’s a poem, and they will pick things that usually have verses – and always four lines in a verse! – and rhyme. If you read these, you will find they often have a regular pattern of syllables too. This is fairly standard.
So, if you look at the first verse of another anthology poem, London by William Blake, it matches with what we’d expect. Four lines per verse. Capitals at the beginning of the line. Rhymes at the end. A clear pattern of stressed syllables (the ones you emphasise)
I wander thro each charter’d street ,
Near where the charter’d Thames does flow,
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

So we have 8 syllables in most lines except the last in the verse. It rhymes alternately. It looks pretty much how you’d expect a poem to look. It has that dee-DUM dee-DUM dee-DUM dee-DUM pattern that makes it easy to read. Each line makes sense on its own. The verse is like a complete sentence, with commas adding a pause and coming at the end of each line. Perhaps the regulation of this poem has something to do with the regulation and restriction Blake finds in the city. But mainly, it’s how poems were written.

So… poets gave us line breaks to make it easy to read (and memorise – remember a lot of poetry came from the ‘troubadour’ tradition – wandering entertainers who would go round telling stories and long poems) and it’s instantly recognisable.

And then we get the first line of e e cummings’ poem:

“next to of course god america i”

which immediately makes us stumble over our words. Next to, of course, God, America… that’s fine. That works. It’s a complete bit of sense. But the ‘i’ tacked on at the end? It really wants to go on the beginning of the next line, or at least have something coming after it. Especially when we realise it’s ‘I love you land of the pilgrims’ – which all goes together. That i is out of place, it seems. It’s not in its most natural position. And it’s a ‘i’ not an I, and although we live in a world of instant messaging and SMS, ‘i’ begs to be capitalised. Traditionally.

So, you’d want to write (or say)

Next to, of course, God, America

I love the land of the pilgrims’

And so forth.

Oh say can you see by the dawn’s early

My country ’tis of centuries come and go

And are no more.

What of it?

We should worry in every language, even deaf and dumb.

Thy sons acclaim thy glorious name.

And so on. And if you compare where you want to put the breaks with where cummings put the breaks, they’re very different.

Yet, when you look at the poem as a whole, it is remarkable for several things:

  1. Firstly, it rhymes. All the way through. He had to chop ‘beautiful’ into two to get ‘beaut’ to rhyme with ‘mute’, but it rhymes.
  2. It has 14 lines. It’s actually a sonnet – that poem sometimes of love – always of contemplation and marshaling of complex ideas into a neat little box.
  3. It has a fairly regular syllabic pattern, with most lines having 10 syllables.
But when you try to look for a dee-DUM dee-DUM rhythm, there isn’t one. And the enjambment – sometimes of words like ‘beaut-iful’ also makes it really hard to find the natural rhythm of the poem. Plus, there are no marked pauses, so you don’t know where to stop and have a breath – which makes it a nightmare to read aloud. Try it!
So… first big question:
Why of all the poetry forms he could pick from, did he choose a sonnet? 

Superficially, you might want to settle for ‘it’s a love poem for America’.


The first mark on the page is a ” – the beginning of someone’s speech. Not the poet’s. Secondly, when you read the poem and look at the content, you get bits of things that make it sound like a poem of appreciation for America, but then a whole lot more that doesn’t. Personally, I think the sonnet form is a pithy little box to put this in. It’s as fake to e e cummings as the cheesy sonnets Shakespeare read and then criticised for their fake sentiment. He’s perhaps doing what Shakespeare did – using a sonnet form to mess with you – to make you think it will be full of fake sentiment – and actually, if you read it, it is!

Incidentally, if you google ‘is ‘next to of course god america i’ the first wiki-answers says it’s not a sonnet because it doesn’t have 10 syllables. Wrong!

Of course it’s a sonnet. And not all of the sonnets have 10 syllables. Some have 9; some have 12. Petrarch, the father of the sonnet, had 12. Don’t believe everything you read!

When you read it, you’ll get the feeling a lot of this isn’t actually the words of whoever is speaking. They’re bits of other things. You have a bit of the Star-spangled Banner – ‘Oh say can you see by the dawn’s early light’ – the first verse of which ends patriotically with ‘The land of the free and the home of the brave’ – which kind of sums up the jingoistic patriotism most anthems pick up on. And you have bits that are kind of like other things, mentioning pilgrims, using archaic language like ’tis and ‘acclaim your glorious name’.

So, what’s the point of a national anthem? You’re supposed to feel all proud, patriotic and pumped-up. It’s what you hear before a battle cry to win a sports match. It’s the kind of tune that makes old soldiers get teary-eyed with sentiment. If you don’t believe me, watch the singing before the Superbowl, or the singing before the six nations rugby matches (not the anthem before England playing football. They’ve got as much national pride as a slug has for a lettuce)

But these words are not the poet’s words. They’re not even really the words of the speaker. They’re just rehashed phrases in kind of a jumble, without any real sentiment behind them. It reminds me a lot of the kind of jingoism that poets like Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon rebelled against in their poetry, egging men on to sign up and fight in wars. Wilfred Owen’s poem that ends ‘Dulce et Decorum est Pro Patria Mori’ – it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country’ – is essentially doing the same thing as this: saying how thin and pointless these patriotic words are. How lacking in real sentiment or value.

What makes the link between this and a poem about the pointlessness of war?

The fact that e e cummings refers to ‘the heroic happy dead’ as if by dying a hero for your country makes you happy. He calls these corpses ‘beautiful’ – as if you become something amazing by dying for your country. Much of the poetry of the First World War dispels this myth – saying it is not dignified or noble or beautiful to be killed in battle – and the only people saying so are those who have no chance of dying in battle themselves!

He also says they ‘rush like lions to the roaring slaughter’… usually, the cliché is ‘lambs to the slaughter’ – not in this case. He calls them ‘lions’. It’s silly – because lion or lamb, they’re still ‘slaughtered’.

“They did not stop to think” kind of echoes ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ – also in the anthology – which says ‘theirs not to make reply/ theirs not to reason why/ theirs but to do and die’ – the kind of men who go blindly into battle. But where The Charge of the Light Brigade celebrates battle, this, like Owen’s poems, focuses on the pointlessness of it.

So… what seems on the surface to be a sonnet glorifying America, patriotism and jingoism is actually nothing more than the hollow regurgitation of words – once by the speaker and once by e e cummings. You can pretty war up as much as you like, swathing it in patriotism and liberty and equality, but at the heart of it, you have ‘lions’ running into a ‘roaring slaughter’ – not a pretty image – just pointless, senseless death.

e e cummings is one of the more interesting poets you can write about – his work is open to interpretation and clever analysis because it works on so many levels and there’s such a lot to say about it. Yes, it’s hard to make sense of, but there’s so much to write about that it’s much more meaty than many of the other poems which teachers have taught over and over again. If you want something to compare this to, think ‘futility’ by Wilfred Owen, another non-conformist sonnet – or ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’ – and if you are looking for a soundtrack, think ‘Born in the USA’ by Springsteen. This poem has more in common with Apocalypse Now! and Platoon about how life is lost senselessly in battles allegedly about freedom.

If you want to read more about the AQA poetry anthology contemporary poetry, you can find my ebook here. If you want to read more about the Literary Heritage poems, including ‘Next to of course god america i’, you can find my AQA Literary Heritage poetry analysis here. Remember, you don’t need a kindle or e-reader to read it; just download the ‘Kindle for PC’ software. If you want an hour’s lesson with me (or even half an hour!) you can find all my details on my website. One hour via skype is £10.00 only! By the end, I promise you will OWN the poems!!